ORDER : M.I.ARUN, J. The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: "(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order to quash the order dated 15.12.2021 in C.C.No.57889/2021 passed by the Court of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall at Bengaluru as per Annexure-A in so far as it relates to the Petitioner and the subsequent proceeding thereof including issuance of summons to the Petitioner herein, and; (b) To grant such other order/s as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and Equity." 2. One Smt.Surekha Paval was the owner of a horse called Frenchman and the horse was placed in a barn being run by accused No.1. He was required to take care of the said horse. On 23.10.2021, the horse was found to be sick. The petitioner (Accused No.2) is a veterinary doctor whose services were engaged by accused No.1 to cater to the health of the horses in his barn. Hence, he contacted the veterinary clinic being run by accused No.2. As accused No.2 was not in the station, he, upon coming to know about the sickness of the horse, directed accused No.3 to go and attend to the horse. Accused No.3 was an intern under accused No.2 and he was not a fully qualified veterinary doctor. He has treated the horse-Frenchman, but the treatment was unsuccessful and the horse died. Then, on the advice of accused No.2, accused No.3 has conducted a postmortem of the dead horse within 3 hours after its death and after recording his findings in the Necropsy report, has got the horse buried. 3. Smt. Surekha Paval suspecting foul play, had an altercation with accused No.1 and thereafter filed a criminal complaint against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 through respondent No.2. After the investigation, a police report has been filed against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 charging them with offences under Sections 429, 201, 176, 341 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 56(b) Chapter-8 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984. This Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against accused No.1 in Criminal Petition No.9213/2021. 4. This Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against accused No.1 in Criminal Petition No.9213/2021. 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for respondent No.2 together submit that the petitioner herein is liable to be tried for the offences under Sections 429, 201 and 176 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Section 56(b) Chapter-8 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984. They admit that the other offences alleged do not pertain to the petitioner herein. 5. Section 429 of the IPC reads as under: '' 429. Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees .—Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox, whatever may be the value thereof, or any other animal of the value of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both." 6. Section 201 of the IPC reads as under: " 201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender .—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, if a capital offence .—shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life .—and if the offence is punishable with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment. —and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. " 7. Section 176 of the IPC reads as under: " 176. Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give it. —Whoever, being legally bound to give any notice or to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits to give such notice or to furnish such information in the manner and at the time required by law, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both; or, if the notice or information required to be given respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both; 1 [or, if the notice or information required to be given is required by an order passed under sub-section (1) of section 565 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898) with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.]" 8. Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 reads as under: "11. Treating animals cruelly .?(1) If any person? (a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated; or" 9. Section 56(b), Chapter-8 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984, reads as under: " Misuse of titles. 56. (a) beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated; or" 9. Section 56(b), Chapter-8 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984, reads as under: " Misuse of titles. 56. If any person:- (b) not possessing a recognised veterinary qualification, uses a degree or a diploma or a licence or an abbreviation indicating or implying such qualification, he shall be punishable on first conviction with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and on any subsequent conviction with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine not exceeding five thousand rupees or with both." 10. The allegation made against the petitioner is that he was a veterinary doctor whose services were being availed regularly by accused No.1 barn to treat the horses and knowing fully well that accused No.3 was not a qualified veterinarian, sent him to treat the horse- Frenchman and because of the wrong treatment given to the horse by accused No.3, the horse has died. 11. The case of the petitioner is that the services of the petitioner / accused No.2 were engaged by accused No.1 and not by the owner of the horse. It is further submitted that accused No.1 fully knew that accused No.3 was only an intern and not a qualified veterinarian. It is further submitted that there was no misrepresentation on the part of accused No.2 about the status of accused No.3 to accused No.1 or anybody. It is submitted that accused No.2 was not in the station, when the horse fell sick, because of which he was constrained to send accused No.3 to check on the horse. It is further submitted that accused No.3 has treated the horse with the consent of accused No.1 who was in charge of the said horse in the barn. It is further submitted that there was no mens rea on part of the petitioner to cause any harm to the horse. It is also submitted that the horse has died due to natural causes and not because of any wrong treatment given by accused No.3. For the said reasons, it is prayed that the petition be allowed and the proceedings against accused No.2 may be dismissed. 12. It is also submitted that the horse has died due to natural causes and not because of any wrong treatment given by accused No.3. For the said reasons, it is prayed that the petition be allowed and the proceedings against accused No.2 may be dismissed. 12. The learned High Court Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that the petitioner / accused No.2 was not in station when the horse fell sick. He also does not dispute the fact that accused No.1 had the knowledge that accused No.3 was not a qualified veterinarian and was only an intern under accused No.2. He also admits that accused No.3 treated the horse with the consent of accused No.1. But it is submitted that accused No.2 being a responsible veterinarian, should not have sent accused No.3 to treat the horse, when he knew fully well that he was only an intern and thereby he has negligently caused the death of the horse. 13. The learned counsel for respondent No.2- complainant, who has filed the complaint on behalf of the owner, submits that it is the criminal negligence of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 which has caused the death of the horse. It is submitted that accused No.3 though not a qualified veterinarian, was issued an identity card by accused No.2 as though he was a qualified veterinarian and accused No.3 has acted upon the instructions of accused No.2 and has treated the horse, which has led to its demise. Further, it is submitted that at the instigation of accused No.2, accused No.3 has hurriedly in a suspicious manner conducted a postmortem of the horse and has got it buried, so that the real reason for the death of the horse is not known, and it amounts to destruction of the evidence. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 14. Admittedly, the horse at the time of its death was under the care and custody of accused No.1. It was the responsibility of accused No.1 to attend the health of the horse if it fell sick. As per the learned High Court Government Pleader, the investigation has revealed that accused No.1 knew the status of accused No.3 as an intern. When the horse fell sick, he contacted accused No.2. It was the responsibility of accused No.1 to attend the health of the horse if it fell sick. As per the learned High Court Government Pleader, the investigation has revealed that accused No.1 knew the status of accused No.3 as an intern. When the horse fell sick, he contacted accused No.2. As he was out of station, he sent accused No.3 to check health condition of the horse, who, with the consent of accused No.1 has administered medicine to the horse upon instructions given by accused No.2. This, in my opinion, may be a negligent act on part of accused No.2 for which he may be liable under the civil proceedings. However, this, in my opinion, will not qualify as mischief as defined under Section 425 of the IPC. The facts do not reveal any intention on the part of accused No.2 to cause the death of the horse. When the horse has fallen sick, he was not in station. Hence, he has sent accused No.3, who was not a qualified veterinarian and was an intern, to check the condition of the horse and this has been done with the consent of accused No.1. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that even knowledge that he is likely to cause damage or death of the horse as contemplated in Section 425 of the IPC cannot be attributed to accused No.2. Hence, I am of the opinion that prosecuting the case against him for the offence under Section 429 of the IPC would be futile. 15. The facts also reveal that a postmortem of the horse has been conducted with the consent of accused No.1 and the horse thereafter has been buried in the place of accused No.1 itself. Under the said circumstances, in my opinion, accused No.2 cannot be charged with the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. 16. With regard to Section 176 of the IPC, the learned High Court Government Pleader has failed to state as to which officer, respondent No.2 had to report about the condition of the horse or its death. Under the said circumstances, the question of prosecuting accused No.2 under Section 176 of the IPC also does not arise. Similarly, Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 56(b) Chapter-8 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984, has no applicability under the present circumstances. Under the said circumstances, the question of prosecuting accused No.2 under Section 176 of the IPC also does not arise. Similarly, Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 56(b) Chapter-8 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984, has no applicability under the present circumstances. Furthermore, this Court in Crl.P.No.9213/2021 has absolved accused No.1 himself of any criminal liability, in whose custody and care the horse was placed. 17. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.57889/2021, pending on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall at Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to accused No.2/petitioner herein, stand quashed. 18. However, it is clarified that this order will not come in the way of the owner of the horse making a claim or suing accused No.2 herein for negligence in the manner known to law.